Long-term efficacy and safety of tonic motor activation for treatment of medication-refractory restless legs syndrome: A 24-Week Open-Label Extension Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of tonic motor activation (TOMAC) for treatment of medication-refractory moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS). METHODS: In the parent study (RESTFUL), adults with refractory RLS were randomized to active TOMAC or sham for 4 weeks followed by 4 weeks of open-label active TOMAC. In the extension study, earlier RESTFUL completers comprised the control group (n = 59), which was followed for 24 weeks with no TOMAC intervention, and later RESTFUL completers compromised the treatment group (n = 44), which received 24 additional weeks of open-label active TOMAC followed by no intervention for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was Clinician Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) responder rate at week 24 compared to RESTFUL entry. RESULTS: CGI-I responder rate improved from 63.6% (95% CI, 49.4 to 77.9%) at RESTFUL completion to 72.7% (95% CI, 58.2 to 83.7%) at week 24 for the treatment group versus 13.6% (95% CI, 7.0 to 24.5%) at week 24 for the control group (p < 0.0001). Mean change in International RLS Rating Scale (IRLS) score improved from -7.4 (95% CI, -5.6 to -9.2) at RESTFUL completion to -11.3 points (95% CI, -8.8 to -13.9) at week 24 for the treatment group versus -5.4 (95% CI, -3.7 to -7.2) at week 24 for control group (p = 0.0001). All efficacy endpoints partially reverted during cessation of treatment. There were no grade 2 or higher device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: TOMAC remained safe and efficacious for >24 total weeks of treatment with partial reversion of benefits upon cessation. CLINICAL TRIAL: Extension Study Evaluating NTX100 Neuromodulation System for Medication-Refractory Primary RLS; clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05196828; Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier number NCT05196828.

Efficacy and safety of tonic motor activation (TOMAC) for medication-refractory restless legs syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of bilateral high-frequency tonic motor activation (TOMAC) in patients with medication-refractory restless legs syndrome (RLS). METHODS: RESTFUL was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in adults with medication-refractory moderate-to-severe primary RLS. Participants were randomized 1:1 to active or sham TOMAC for a double-blind, 4-week stage 1 and all received active TOMAC during open-label, 4-week stage 2. The primary endpoint was the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) responder rate at the end of stage 1. Key secondary endpoints included change to International RLS Study Group (IRLS) total score from study entry to the end of stage 1. RESULTS: A total of 133 participants were enrolled. CGI-I responder rate at the end of stage 1 was significantly greater for the active versus sham group (45% vs. 16%; Difference = 28%; 95% CI 14% to 43%; p = .00011). At the end of stage 2, CGI-I responder rate further increased to 61% for the active group. IRLS change at the end of stage 1 improved for the active versus sham group (-7.2 vs. -3.8; difference = -3.4; 95% CI -1.4 to -5.4; p = .00093). There were no severe or serious device-related adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were mild discomfort and mild administration site irritation which resolved rapidly and reduced in prevalence over time. CONCLUSIONS: TOMAC was safe, well tolerated, and reduced symptoms of RLS in medication-refractory patients. TOMAC is a promising new treatment for this population. CLINICAL TRIAL: Noninvasive Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Medication-Refractory Primary RLS (The RESTFUL Study); clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04874155; Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier number NCT04874155.

Variable negative external pressure-an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a pilot study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess variable negative external pressure (vNEP) therapy using a range of pressures and varying collar sizes and shapes to identify combinations that improve the efficacy and comfort of this emerging therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: This prospective, open-label pilot study included 28 eligible patients (71% men) having documented moderate OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] 15 events/h ≤ AHI ≤ 30 events/h) at 1 sleep clinic for an overnight, in-lab sleep trial. Each participant tested at least 2 of 6 available vNEP devices during sleep periods ≥ 2 hours. During the assessment of AHI by polysomnography, negative pressures of -20 cm H2O to -35 cm H2O were adjusted to improve each patient's response. Participants' therapeutic preferences were assessed by a questionnaire and interviews. RESULTS: Twenty (71%) of the participants responded to vNEP therapy: excellent response (AHI ≤ 5 events/h) was observed in 14 (50%); 6 (21%) achieved a partial response (AHI ≤ 50% baseline). For the 20 responders, the therapy reduced the fraction of total sleep time when peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% and improved minimum pulse oximetry oxygen saturation. Six patients experienced a minor, self-limited adverse event. Twenty-six participants (93%) stated that they would use vNEP nightly. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, vNEP therapy markedly improved AHI and oxygenation in most patients with moderate OSA. The majority of participants found vNEP comfortable and preferable to prevailing OSA therapies. Further development and studies of vNEP are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Study of Variable Negative External Pressure (vNEP) in Reducing Respiratory Event in Individuals With OSA; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04718142; Identifier: NCT04718142. CITATION: Kram JA, Pelayo R. Variable negative external pressure-An alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A pilot study. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(1):305-314.

Evaluation of Continuous Negative External Pressure (cNEP) for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Pilot Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine if the application of continuous negative external pressure (cNEP) is effective and safe in individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) during an overnight in-laboratory sleep study. METHODS: A prospective, open-label pilot study in subjects with documented OSA recruited from the patient population at one sleep clinic. The intervention was application and titration of cNEP during overnight polysomnography. RESULTS: Of the 15 subjects studied (mean apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] at baseline, 43.9 events/h), 13 (87%) were responders to cNEP: 9 had an excellent response (AHI < 5 events/h) and 4 had a partial response (AHI < 50% baseline and < 15 events/h). Three minor, self-limited adverse events occurred, which appeared related to contact pressure of the cNEP device on the skin. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, cNEP appears to be safe and effective during short-term use in subjects with OSA. Further studies are warranted.

A multicenter, prospective study of a novel nasal EPAP device in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: efficacy and 30-day adherence.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the efficacy of a novel device placed in the nares that imposes an expiratory resistance for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and evaluate adherence to the device over a 30-day in-home trial period. DESIGN: One diagnostic and 3 treatment polysomnograms were administered in a Latin-square design to identify the optimal expiratory resistance to be used during the 30-day in-home trial. Subjects had repeat polysomnography with the prescribed device at the end of the 30-day trial. SETTING: Multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=34; age 27 to 67) with a baseline apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) > or =5. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The AHI was reduced from 24.5 _ 23.6 (mean +/- SD) to an average of 13.5 +/- 18.7 (p < 0.001) across initial treatment nights. The AHI was 15.5 +/-+/- 18.9 (p = 0.001) for the prescribed device at the end of the 30-day trial. Of 24 subjects with an AHI > 10 at baseline, 13 achieved an AHI < 10 on the initial treatment nights; 10 had a similar response on the final treatment night. Percent of the night snoring decreased from 27.5 +/- 23.2 to 11.6 +/- 13.7 (p < 0.001) on initial treatment nights and 14.6 +/- 20.6 (p = 0.013) at the end of the trial; Epworth Sleepiness scores decreased from 8.7 +/- 4.0 at baseline to 6.9 +/- 4.4 (p < 0.001) at the end of the trial; the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index improved from 7.4 +/- 3.3 to 6.5 +/- 3.6 (p = 0.042). Mean oxygen saturation increased from 94.8 +/- 2.0 to 95.2 +/- 1.9 (p = 0.023) on initial treatment nights and 95.3 +/- 1.9 (p = 0.003) at the end of the trial. Sleep architecture was not affected. Participants reported using the device all night long for 94% of nights during the in-home trial. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with this novel device was well tolerated and accepted by the participants. An overall reduction in AHI was documented; however, therapeutic response was variable among the participants. Further research is required to identify the ideal candidates for this new therapeutic option in the management of OSA.